My bad, I meant second to last. Since you did not get a chance to read it here it is.

Wrong again Sho. Its not a morphing arguement, but a complete strain of understanding of okinawan karate. I have always made all of these arguements since I began posting on the subject. The thing is I did not begin by speaking of these skills historically. It was the others who were lost(pun intended) on my initial posts who requested historical links, which I had and gave. I would point out the grappling techs from kata. Someone would say that there are no ground grappling techs in kata. I would relate specific techniques and give their modern equivalent. Then I would explain that just like striking skill grappling skill is gained from actually grappling, not performing kata. I then referrenced karate men who were trained in grappling in preperation for karate training. I then attempted to explain who standing grappling relates to ground grappling. Especially since there were a lot of people with no grappling training commenting I wanted to explain how techniques in grappling crossover in all stages. For example in wrestling there are moves called the granby roll and a switch. They can be hit both standing and on the ground and they are fundementally the same whether standing or on the ground. This has always been my argument.

Quote: I don't necessarily think that Karateka would have ever needed to adapt to ground battles as I think in older times fighters who hit the floor would just try to get up first because fighting on the ground is just too tacticaly unsound and I don't think ground grapling arts or strategies were common place. I also feel that the ground was ever a range that was trained for by karateka as non of that kind of training seems to have been passed on to us (you yourself train in other arts for your drills etc), and I think that any such adaptation was done on the fly and never focussed on. Just my opinion though.

If my interpretation of your viewpoint is correct then I'd just like to point out that with the exception of the ground pin which we can all agree on (I think) this is different from your original contention that ground fighting was always in Karate kata. What I believe you to say above is that Karateka have always adapted their kata techniques to work on the ground if they had to. What I think your original contention was that folks argued with, was that kata has always contained techniques for specific application on the ground and the art of karate has always contained training for ground fighting. Now whether you meant to or not the image people have when someone says ground fighting is BJJ, not pins and restraints.

I cannot agree that the kata we practice were designed with any kind of prolonged tactical ground work in them, or that the art of karate has always contained drills for using kata on the ground in a BJJ-like manner.I can agree that they contain stand-up grappling including pins and restraints and that these can be adapted for use on the ground.

Quote: I still disagree with you because I don't feel that ground grappling has ever been a particularly foccused on skill at any point in world martial history except for gladiatorial matches and as the most desperate last resort on a battlefield or SD situation. I think if fighters went to the floor then they did what they had to in order to get up before the other guy and that was the extent that the ground was acknowledged in MA training.

What I think probably held the place in Karate training that you seem to feel was held by grappling was actually weapons. Assailants would've had them so disarming and using whatever came to hand would IMO have been an important area of MA training. As CXT pointed out weapons are something we actually know were taught and passed on but died out in many schools due to lack of interest (and I suspect the sweeping cultural changes that turned many martial arts into philosophical schools of self betterment was part of that).

Lots and lots of points for discussion but more than half your last post to me is dedicated to whining about how others put words in your mouth. Get over it.

Quote:

Wrong again Sho. Its not a morphing arguement, but a complete strain of understanding of okinawan karate. I have always made all of these arguements since I began posting on the subject.

Ok, well above I've collected where I disagree with you and some counter viewpoints that you've been ignoring for the sake of playing the victim. If you'd like to have a discussion on MA, it's all there for you.

Your "bad" was not your simple mistake....which anyone could have made....the "bad" was being all snide and short about it.

Again, what you post above is mainly responses to other conversations and not actually laying out what you belive and why.

Here is what I mean....sorry for the length.

I belive that at least "some" form of "grappling"---is conntected with karate from very early in its history.

-The oldest "family" styles of karate seem to have a lot of jujutsu like techniques....and some unsual weapons for the local.

-Many/most Chinese arts have at least "some" grappling related training--and Okinawan karate was devloped by people that trained extensivley in China or were trained by people that did......so it could be resonably assumed that they were taught "some" sort of grappling related skills.

-We know that some form of grappling/wrestling was practiced on Okinawa---a number of people have mentioned it-some refer to it as tegumi--HOWEVER--its often mentioned in context as much more of a game, activity or even entertainment---not really as a martial art.

-We know that some styles--Goju for one--and of course others--retain/have at least "some" grappling applications which ARE woven in the kata/bunkai etc.

-We know that some famous individuals such as Nakasone (if memory serves) of Tomari-te were famous for their grappling like "tricks"--such as fast take-downs and locks.

Just a short read but you get the point......"something" or even "many" grappling related things were going on.

Down-side---all arguements have them.

-Even if accruate--and some of that is certainly debatable--there is really very little evidence that any of it was ever directled incorpaorted into karate itself--or passed down in s systimized fashion...much less calculatedly "hidden" in kata.

-Very few students of any of the old-timers so much as mention such application OR such training--quite the reverse of what one would expect.BTW this applies even to very long and trusted students.

(Not so weird--Higashionna was reportadly quite skilled with a number of Chinese weapons--but he does not seem to have taught them to anyone in official or systematic fashion...if he taught them at all. (or only to couple of people)Plus--weapon training as a whole was part and parcal of karate..but it TOO kinda went thu a decline--so much so that karate itself become known as a "weaponless art"So there are a couple of precedents here---just off the top of my head)

-Very few such "grapppling related" incidents occur even among the "old timers/old masters"

-The incidents of "testing" ones skills--informally or formally far more often speak of striking rather than grappling----which if it were so widespread and intrigal to karate training you would assume such things to be roughly even.

-Oblique verbage is used that can be takeden in several way....not just what w think of as grappling.

-When you look at the term "grappling" it can have mutiple meanings----and some aspects of it--such as groundfighting-- are even more rare than the already pretty thin examples.

-The grappling preserved is often pretty basic stuff---by that it should be recognized that whatever its parent might or might not have included back in the day--most of what we have is NOT some sort of "complete grappling" art--effecitve yes--but its clearly some sort of parallel or analog of judo or jujutsu in scope or content.

-Many of the more "modern" students--"modern" in the sense that since the 1920/1930's or perhaps even earlier--have had direct opportunites to study judo in Japan and Okinawa itself.Arguable that at least "some" of the grappling has a much more modern derivation than one would think.

(as an example--anyone whom trains for a couple of decades, will quite likely pick up all kinds of stuff from all sorts of people---my college room mate was a Shotokan student--but he learned some stuff from the "Chinese martial arts club" on campus.)

-Many Japanese martial aritst---the "modern era" students in many case most certainly DID have cross training in their backgrounds....so again, we may be seeing something quite different than we think.

Ok, so now we have some pros and cons---and just a short list of both.

So what I think--based on the above is that IMO tegumi was something people did as a sport or even a game---similer to how pretty much every kid in the USA know to and has played baseball (soccor or cricket elsewere)

Since it was pretty comon karate training didn't focus on it much because it would have been redundent.....and since it does not seem to have been viewed as a "fighting art" like karate....it was not preserved as such.

Since many people did tegumi--it was simply and correctly assumed that karate students knew and understood when and where and how such grappling could be used in fighting---they were there to learn karate.

Some styles/people with more detailed Chinese applications taught them to whomever was interested and passed them down that way.

Instead of "hidding" the applications in kata---those people that knew and wanted to---"hung" or "attached" their grappling applications around what they were learning.Kinda the reverse of what is often claimed---sort of a "hey from this point in the kata I can work in a leg-sweep or a armbar and pin."

So instead of being a systematic and detailed grappling curriculum somehow "hidden" in the kata---IMO it was more of a highly individualized and ideosyncratic set of skills that was handed down as a sort of "you can do this TOO" with a number of karate-ka on a more or less individual and kinda piece-meal basis.

Which BTW does NOT imply a lack of effectiveness or skill.

Good lord...had no idea I was waxing so long and tedious....sorry folks.

Anyway, hope I'm kinda being clear here.

As always, could be wrong.....just talking here.

Edited by cxt (07/29/0810:53 AM)

_________________________
I did battle with ignorance today.......and ignorance won.
Huey.

CXT, great post, but who exactly said karate kata has a "systematic and detailed grappling curriculum?" The points that you are mentioning are not all that related to my arguement. The grappling I am referring to as it relates to kata training is very basic. But that is actually all you need as a striker. Why would you go out and pursue a BB in BJJ or Judo if you are a striker? It is really not needed. But I am not really here to discuss historical connections between grappling and karate/kata, right? Matt agreed that that was the source of any backlash I may have perceived that I was experiencing. But if you need a few quotes from Nagamine's book I will provide them.

"who said karate kata has a systmeic and detailed grappling cirruculm"

Me, I said it.....part of my POV is that such is probably not the case.

Its not always about you after all.

Part of presenting a proper case is laying out your POV and attendent assumptions---its not just replies to other people.

And I'm not sure that I really agree on the latter---having enough skills to get you by--so to speak should be the bare minium for training--IMO one should seek to do more than that.

My POV would suggest that grappling was not studied much because many of the students ALREADY had at least "some" to " quite a bit" of expereince in some grappling related skills---NOT that what they could pick up THU their karate training would be a "good enough" subsitute.

Pretty serious difference there.

Edited by cxt (07/29/0801:51 PM)

_________________________
I did battle with ignorance today.......and ignorance won.
Huey.